MINORU FUJIKI, PETITIONER, VS. MARIA PAZ GALELA MARINAY, SHINICHI MAEKARA, LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE NATIONA…

Minoru Fujiki versus Maria Paz Galela Marinay

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought directly to the Supreme Court from the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, raising a pure question of law. Minoru Fujiki, a Japanese national, asks the Court to overturn the trial court's dismissal of his petition seeking judicial recognition of a Japanese Family Court judgment that declared the marriage between his Filipino wife, Maria Paz Galela Marinay, and another Japanese national, Shinichi Maekara, void on the ground of bigamy. The case matters because it settles who may sue to attack a bigamous marriage, and by what procedure a foreign judgment affecting the civil status of a Filipino citizen may be recognized in the Philippines.

Procedural History

Fujiki filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 107, entitled Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment, or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage. A few days after filing, the trial court immediately issued an order dismissing the petition and withdrawing the case from its active docket. The trial court held that the petition violated the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, because only the husband or the wife may file such a petition, and because venue was improper. Fujiki moved for reconsideration, arguing that the Rule governs ordinary civil actions and not a special proceeding to recognize a foreign judgment. The trial court denied the motion, reiterating lack of personality to sue and improper venue, treating Fujiki as a third person, and characterizing the petition as a collateral attack on the validity of marriage. Fujiki then went directly to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, on a pure question of law. The Office of the Solicitor General, appearing for the public respondents, filed a Manifestation and Motion agreeing with Fujiki and asking that the case be reinstated in the trial court. Marinay and Maekara each sent letters to the Court; Marinay said she had no reason to oppose the petition, while Maekara said Marinay had concealed her prior marriage and denied inflicting violence on her.

Facts

Minoru Fujiki, a Japanese national residing in Japan, married Maria Paz Galela Marinay in the Philippines on 23 January 2004. The marriage did not sit well with Fujiki's parents, so he could not bring his wife to Japan, and eventually the couple lost contact with each other.

In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese national, Shinichi Maekara. Without the first marriage being dissolved, Marinay and Maekara were married on 15 May 2008 in Quezon City. Maekara brought Marinay to Japan, but Marinay allegedly suffered physical abuse from him. She left Maekara and began to contact Fujiki again. Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and reestablished their relationship.

In 2010, Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan declaring the marriage between Marinay and Maekara void on the ground of bigamy. On 14 January 2011, Fujiki filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City praying that the Japanese Family Court judgment be recognized, that the bigamous marriage be declared void from the beginning under Articles 35(4) and 41 of the Family Code, and that the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City be directed to annotate the Japanese judgment on the certificate of marriage between Marinay and Maekara and to endorse the annotation to the Office of the Administrator and Civil Registrar General.

Issues

• Whether or not the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages applies to a petition to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage.
• Whether or not a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and a foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy.
• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court can recognize the foreign judgment in a proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

Applicable Provisions

Article 35(4) of the Family Code provides:

Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so.

This is the provision the Court cites in declaring that bigamous marriages are void from the beginning, and it anchors the ruling that the Japanese judgment is consistent with Philippine public policy.

Article 15 of the Civil Code provides:

Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.

This is the rule of lex nationalii, or the law of the nationality, and it is why the Philippine State may require recognition by Philippine courts of a foreign judgment affecting its citizen.

Section 1 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides:

Any person interested in any act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto, with the Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located.

This is the procedural vehicle the Court approves for recognizing the foreign judgment and cancelling the entry of the bigamous marriage.

Section 2(a) of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages provides:

A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife.

The Court construes this to refer to the husband or the wife of the subsisting marriage, which is why the prior spouse has the personality to sue.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court holds that the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages does not apply to a petition to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country. To apply the Rule would require the trial court and the parties to follow its provisions on the form and contents of the petition, summons, investigation by the public prosecutor, pre-trial, trial, and judgment, which would mean litigating the case anew and would defeat the purpose of recognizing foreign judgments, which is to limit repetitive litigation. The petitioner need only prove the foreign judgment as a fact under the rules of evidence, through an official publication or a certification or copy attested by the officer having custody of the judgment, authenticated by the proper Philippine diplomatic or consular officer.

On the second issue, the Court holds that the prior spouse has the personality to file the petition. Section 2(a) of the Rule does not preclude a spouse of a subsisting marriage from questioning the validity of a subsequent marriage on the ground of bigamy. When it says that a petition may be filed solely by the husband or the wife, it refers to the husband or the wife of the subsisting marriage, because under Article 35(4) the parties in a bigamous marriage are neither husband nor wife under the law. The prior spouse is the injured party, personally interested in protecting the integrity of his marriage and the property relations arising from it, and he may prove the foreign judgment as a fact.

On the third issue, the Court holds that recognition of the foreign judgment may be made in a special proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108. A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact, and Rule 108 creates a remedy to rectify facts of a person's life recorded by the State. Fujiki has the personality to file such a petition because the judgment concerns his civil status as married to Marinay. Once the foreign judgment is established, there is no more impediment to cancel the entry of the bigamous marriage in the civil registry.

Doctrine

A petition to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage is a special proceeding, not an ordinary civil action, and is not governed by the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages. The foreign judgment is proved as a fact under the rules of evidence, and Philippine courts exercise only limited review, setting it aside only for want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. The husband or the wife of a subsisting prior marriage is a real party in interest with the personality to sue to declare a subsequent bigamous marriage void, because under Article 35(4) of the Family Code a bigamous marriage is void from the beginning, and the parties to it are neither husband nor wife under the law. Recognition of the foreign judgment and cancellation of the bigamous entry in the civil registry may be sought in a Rule 108 proceeding by any person interested in any act, event, order, or decree concerning the civil status of persons recorded in the civil register.

Disposition

The Court granted the petition, set aside the trial court's dismissal, and reinstated the case in the Regional Trial Court for further proceedings, with Fujiki recognized as having the personality to file the petition.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the prior spouse is the injured party, and the husband or the wife referred to in the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity is the spouse of the subsisting marriage, not of the bigamous one. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between a special proceeding to recognize a foreign judgment and an ordinary action for declaration of nullity, and the personality of the prior spouse to attack a bigamous marriage.